That's what was believed at the time. There wasn't anything giving us a definitive answer about the Black Heart's nature for the past nine years of Destiny, to my knowledge. Tying the Black Heart to the Veil is what finally gave us a definitive answer to the nature of the Black Heart. Before that, all we knew for certain was that the Black Heart's existence seemed to guarantee the Dark Futures that Elsie Bray kept on experiencing and that destroying it finally broke the cycle.

If you say so. I mean besides them not looking the same, operating the same or anything. Despite supposedly being a copy… If you wanna believe that, feel free.

[quote] I mean besides them not looking the same, operating the same or anything. Despite supposedly being a copy…[/quote] All of which is answered by the fact it was a failed copy.

Not likely. Bungie they openly admitted to not knowing what the Darkness was as far back as base D2. And the Veil is manifestation of Darkness. It also has zero concept art predating what they released recently, it’s new. So how was the BH planned to be a failed copy of something that Bungie only relatively came up with recently? Not to mention the Black Heart and Oryxs Ravenous Heart look more alike than the BH and Veil do. Not sure why people think it can never be retcons when they are made to bridge gaps or fix past mistakes and this company flat out admits to flubbing the narrative.

[quote]@Vongola654 Not likely. Bungie they openly admitted to not knowing what the Darkness was as far back as base D2. And the Veil is manifestation of Darkness. It also has zero concept art predating what they released recently, it’s new. So how was the BH planned to be a failed copy of something that Bungie only relatively came up with recently?[/quote] Based on the roadmap shown a while back, Lightfall was already in production during 2021, and we can see that the same art used for the Veil in the Witness' origin story first appeared in Rhulk's Pyramid in "Vow of Disciple". That could have been when the concept of the Veil was fully developed, or it was a story concept they developed further back, and The Witch Queen expansion was the moment in time they decided to introduce it. I never once mentioned I thought it was planned from the start. At most, I said we didn't have any definitive answers about the Black Heart after it was first introduced (and after we destroyed it), and that the connection to the Veil does give us an answer. And I am perfectly fine with that story development.

Based on the roadmap it is relatively recently in comparison to Day 1 D1, which is when the BH was introduced. A retcon is a change post release. If it wasn’t planned on the beginning, it was later retconned. Unless we are redefining the word retcon? Again, you’re talking like agreeing with it somehow negates the basic facts that it was changed and retcons deal with post release changes. So you can be fine with it while it’s still a retcon. The only reason you’d disagree on labeling as such is because you find the notion of retconning to be negative. Feelings don’t retcon definitions. 😎

[quote]A retcon is a change post release. If it wasn’t planned on the beginning, it was later retconned. [/quote] Saying a retcon is "a change post-release" is so broad and encompassing, it might as well be meaningless to even use the word, [i]especially in the case of an ongoing story[/i]. It would even be pointless to add to the lore and develop concepts further because all of that would fall under your "post-release change" definition of retcons. [quote]So you can be fine with it while it’s still a retcon. The only reason you’d disagree on labeling as such is because you find the notion of retconning to be negative.[/quote] No, it is because my definition of what a retcon is has far tighter requirements than "anything that isn't what I heard in the first hour of an ongoing story". We didn't know much about the Black Heart, beyond the fact that destroying it was essential to averting the Dark Future. Lightfall revealed that it was a failed copy of the Veil, giving us a definitive answer to what it is. That is not a retcon, in my mind. That's just developing the story. It must drive you mad that I just want to engage with the story and see where it goes.

There’s a difference between intentionally misleading for a future reveal or twist and retconning due to inconsistency or changes. Intentionally misleading isn’t a post release change, it was always meant to be misleading. Whereas a retcon happens due to inconsistencies and/or changes. Really basic concept you ought to know by now. You’re just overgeneralizing and oversimplifying to defend someone else’s work and mistakes. Weird but your choice. Notice how you have to qualify things with ‘in my mind’ which inherently means you are disregarding even the [i]developers and writers[/i]. So if you’re going to disregard the creators, then you’re talking headcannon, aka fan fiction. Why would I be mad about you trying to enjoy the story? Again, my pointing out something was retconned shouldn’t matter to you enjoying it unless you have have some sort of bias against retconned material. Because if all you’re really trying to do is enjoy it, you’d just say ‘oh okay’ and move right along but it doesn’t matter if all you’re interested in is enjoying the story as is. Because you don’t need to agree with their every decision to enjoy the story. That’s nonsense. By using feelings to justify a retcon as not being a retcon? That’s laughable. ‘I like it so it’s not a retcon’ Oh and fyi, when you don’t actually quote someone word for word, you use these ‘…’ Not “…”, you use those when actually quoting someone verbatim. Don’t get mad at me for pointing out minor issues with development. You’re acting like it’s personal. Explains why you’re the mad one…

[quote]Notice how you have to qualify things with ‘in my mind’ which inherently means you are disregarding even the developers and writers. So if you’re going to disregard the creators, then you’re talking headcannon, aka fan fiction. [/quote] Disagreeing with you isn't a sign that I'm "disregarding the developers and writers". You're the one who all but dismissed any attempt at discussion about the Veil by saying it is a retcon. The Veil is part of the story proper, as is the Black Heart's connection to it. As the opening post says, I am genuinely interested to learn why the Vex have such an interest in the Veil, when they don't show the same towards the Traveler. I'm not disregarding the developers and writers, or their work; I'm waiting to see where they'll take the story next.

I never said disagreeing with [u]me[/u]. You said “in my head” which means you discount [i]everyone else[/i], which includes the developers and writers. Otherwise you don’t follow what’s in your head but what [i]they mean[/i]. So your choice of words would be along the lines of ‘to me they mean xyz’ My answer explained that their interest isn’t organic as to have any expectations about it. It’s a forced connection hence the inconsistency. They took an object with no real purpose associated with the Vex and drew a line from the Veil to it give the current object some historical reference in the known canon [b]and[/b] as a reason why the Vex are the enemy used in LF/ the preplanned intended aggressor of the planned Neomuna location. A perfectly normal and sensible reason for retconning. They give the newer object some legitimacy and have a reason for motivation to use for the Vex as the bad guy. Two birds one stone that also explains the discrepancy you’re asking about, which is the natural byproduct of retcons. And none of that should impede your ability to enjoy the story as it’s being written. 😎

[quote]I never said disagreeing with me. You said “in my head” which means you discount everyone else, which includes the developers and writers. [/quote] That's not what I meant when I said it. Would it have been clearer if I said, "in my opinion", or does that somehow qualify as discounting everyone else, as well? [quote]Otherwise you don’t follow what’s in your head but what they mean. So your choice of words would be along the lines of ‘to me they mean xyz’[/quote] Coming from you, that's pure hypocrisy. Several of your posts have been you imposing your own meaning on what I've been saying, only following what's in your own head. [quote]My answer explained that their interest isn’t organic as to have any expectations about it. It’s a forced connection hence the inconsistency. They took an object with no real purpose associated with the Vex and drew a line from the Veil to it give the current object some historical reference in the known canon and as a reason why the Vex are the enemy used in LF/ the preplanned intended aggressor of the planned Neomuna location. A perfectly normal and sensible reason for retconning. They give the newer object some legitimacy and have a reason for motivation to use for the Vex as the bad guy. Two birds one stone that also explains the discrepancy you’re asking about, which is the natural byproduct of retcons. [/quote] I feel like you were projecting when you said I was "overgeneralizing and oversimplifying" because the above is painfully oversimplified. You just argued they created the Veil and connected it to the Black Heart, made a "forced connection" and introduced an "inconsistency", [i]just so they could put Vex on Neomuna.[/i] ---------------------------------------------------- Whatever the reason why the Vex are interested in the Veil, it is almost certainly tied to recent statements about the Vex being in a position to become the main threat after [i]Final Shape[/i]. If their interest in the Veil eventually develops into them becoming the main antagonists after the Witness, I am interested in seeing how that will happen. I'll let that be the end of it.